PRACTICES OF TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE CASE OF STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES IN ESTONIAN BASIC SCHOOLS

(1)

PRACTICES OF TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE CASE OF STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES IN ESTONIAN BASIC

SCHOOLS MA thesis

MERLE PAAT SUPERVISOR: Asst. Lect. NATALJA ZAGURA, MA

TARTU

2018

(2)

ABSTRACT

Estonia is among those countries that follow the principles of inclusion in education, which means that general education is available to every person regardless of their social and economic background, nationality, gender, place of residence or special educational needs. Parents have the right to choose a school for their child and a basic school must accept all the students to whom the school is a school of residence. As a result, schools need to educate students with special educational needs who not very long time ago were supposed to attend special schools. One area that is insufficiently covered in Estonia is teaching foreign languages to students with learning difficulties. These are students who lack cognitive skills, have difficulty in acquiring basic literacy and in understanding concepts to the extent that they are not able to reach the outcomes of the National Curriculum for Basic Schools.

The aim of the present master’s thesis is to observe and describe the situation in practices of teaching English as a foreign language to students who need implementing the Simplified National Curriculum for Basic Schools. Four aspects are focused on: (1) organisation of teaching (classroom, weekly schedule, support staff), (2) content (learning materials, teaching techniques, assessment), (3) how teaching English falls into the inclusion framework; (4) what are the teachers’ perceptions about teaching English to students with learning difficulties, how confident they are and what they lack most. The qualitative, descriptive study was carried out in the form of semi-structured interviews. One set of interview questions was created and the interviews were conducted with eight teachers from three different counties and three different types of schools.

The introduction provides an overview of what inclusion policy has brought about in the context of teaching students with special educational needs in Estonia while bringing into focus teaching students with learning difficulties. Also, special educational needs are defined and three previous studies about teaching English to students with special educational needs are referred to. The literature overview describes what is behind the policy of inclusive education, what is said about teaching foreign languages to students with learning difficulties, and what the situation of teaching students with special educational needs in Estonia is.

The second chapter analyses the interview responses, focusing on the following aspects:

(1) how teaching English is organised in terms of the Simplified National Curriculum for Basic Schools, (2) which materials are used, (3) what kind of teaching techniques are used, (4) whether teachers have opportunities for developing all the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) and teaching vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar; (5) how the students are assessed and what kind of homework they are given; (6) how teachers understand the term ‘inclusive education’; (7) how teachers feel about teaching students with learning difficulties and what they need most. The discussion draws conclusions based on these findings and provides some suggestions.

(3)

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS

CEFR – Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

European Agency - European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education ILE – I Love English coursebook series by Ülle Kurm & Ene Soolepp

LD students – students whose learning difficulties need implementing SNCBS NCBS – National Curriculum for Basic Schools

SEN students – students with special educational needs SNCBS – Simplified National Curriculum for Basic Schools

(5)

INTRODUCTION

The idea of education for all or inclusive education is internationally recognised and the foundation of it was already laid out in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948), stating that everyone has the right to education and education is directed to the full development of the human personality, promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship regardless of nationality, race, or religion. This universal statement has been elaborated together with specific frameworks for action provided in several documents, such as World Declaration on Education for All (UNESCO 1990), The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO 1994), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006), Education & Training 2020 strategy (The Council of the European Union 2009), Education 2030 Incheon Declaration (UNESCO 2015). The time that international organisations have been promoting inclusive education indicates that it is still an ongoing process.

Estonia is among those countries that follow the principles of inclusion in education.

According to Estonian Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act, general education is available equally to every person, parents have the right to choose a school for their child and a basic school is required to accept all the students to whom the school is a school of residence (Riigi Teataja 2010a: §6, §27(1)). Schools must make sure that quality education is provided to every student regardless of their social and economic background, nationality, gender, place of residence or special educational needs (ibid: § 6(1)) and school curricula are designed according to the needs and interests of students (ibid: §6 (3)). Students with special educational needs (SEN students) generally study in a mainstream class of their school of residence (ibid: §47 (1)). Besides teaching in a mainstream classroom, schools are entitled to create special classes or groups in order to organise the studies of SEN students more efficiently (ibid: §51). It has led to the situation where teachers have students of

(6)

different needs and abilities in their classroom and have to educate students who not very long time ago where taught in special schools.

Students have special educational needs when they have learning problems or disabilities that make it harder for them to learn than most children of the same age. Mitchell (2014:

xiii) says that special educational needs are revealed when a child fails to meet the curriculum requirements or does not develop proper social or physical skills due to sensory, physical, intellectual or emotional factors. In the European Commission report (Marsh et al 2015) on teaching foreign languages to SEN students special educational needs are categorised into four groups: (1) cognitive and learning difficulties, (2) emotional, behavioural and social difficulties, (3) communication and interaction difficulties, and (4) sensory and physical difficulties.

According to Marsh et al (2015: 20), cognitive and learning difficulties include moderate, severe, profound, and specific learning difficulties. Students with moderate learning difficulties have difficulty in acquiring basic literacy and in understanding concepts. They may also have associated speech and language delay, low self-esteem, low levels of concentration and under-developed social skills. Students with severe learning difficulties have significant intellectual or cognitive impairments. They may have difficulties in mobility and coordination, communication and perception, and the acquisition of self-help skills.

Profound learning difficulties mean that in addition to severe learning difficulties, students have physical disabilities, sensory impairment or a severe medical condition. They use very simple language or only gestures or eye pointing.

Specific learning difficulties include dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, and dysgraphia (March et al 2015: 20). Dyscalculia (Understood 2018a) involves various mathematics- related difficulties, for example understanding concepts (bigger-smaller), using symbols, etc. Students with dyslexia (Understood 2018b) are not able to read accurately and fluently.

(7)

They may also have trouble with reading comprehension, spelling and writing. Dysgraphia causes problems in written expression. In case of dysgraphia students may have poor handwriting, struggle with spelling and organising thoughts in writing (Understood 2018c).

Dyspraxia makes it hard to plan and coordinate physical movement (Understood 2018d).

Students may be unable to perform a wide range of everyday physical tasks, they may show immature behaviour and lack in social skills.

According to Marsh et al (2015: 21), students with milder emotional, behavioural and social difficulties lack social interaction skills, they may be verbally aggressive and lose temper easily, and find it hard to concentrate on a task. Students with more severe difficulties show defiant behaviour and may be physically aggressive. Their attention span is very short.

They have a very low self-esteem and they cannot accept praise. In most severe cases students may behave in such a violent way that it requires physical intervention. Some students do not show any signs of aggressive behaviour, but have low self-esteem, cannot cope with communication and learning, tend to be depressive. Kõrgesaar (2002: 40-41) defines the abovementioned difficulties as externalising (outwardly) and internalising (inwardly) emotional and behavioural difficulties, claiming that boys tend to exhibit the former and girls the latter.

According to Marsh et al (2015: 22), students with communication and interaction difficulties struggle with understanding and making themselves understood in spoken interaction. It may be due to their poor or unintelligible speech, limited vocabulary or incorrect language structures. Students with autistic spectrum disorders may also have difficulties in communication due to poor speech, but also because they take the messages literally and cannot take into account the social context. If they cannot follow strict routines, they become anxious. They may respond unexpectedly to sensory stimulations.

(8)

Sensory difficulties include hearing and visual impairment. Having a physical difficulty is manifested in reduced mobility or a medical condition (e.g. chronic somatic diseases) that prevents students from participating in everyday school life (Marsh et al 2015: 23).

The spectrum of special educational needs is very wide and the opportunities for dealing with them really complex. Teaching SEN students may require making accommodations in learning materials, teaching techniques, school buildings; involving special educators and assistant teachers; making changes in the organisation of studies and ensuring that curricula are designed to meet students’ needs. Estonia has two national curricula for basic schools:

National Curriculum for Basic Schools (NCBS) and Simplified National Curriculum for Basic Schools (SNCBS) (Riigi Teataja 2010b) with a reduced number of subjects, reduced learning outcomes and different weekly schedules. SNCBS is implemented when a student has mild, moderate, or severe/profound learning difficulties, but only on the recommendation of a counselling committee and with the parent’s consent (Riigi Teataja 2010b: §1 (1)). SNCBS includes three different learning plans for each category (Riigi Teataja 2010b: Appendices 1-3). In the present thesis, the term SNBCS refers only to the simplified plan for students with mild learning difficulties, because students who have moderate or severe/profound learning difficulties are more likely to be taught in special schools and their education plans do not require learning foreign languages.

Three master’s theses at the Department of English Studies in the University of Tartu have dealt with teaching English to SEN students: students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Ivask 2015), blind/visually impaired students (Lõvi 2013) and autistic students (Salum 2011). Ivask (2015: 65) points out that while teaching ADHD students requires differentiated tasks, they are generally able to achieve the learning outcomes of the NCBS when a teacher can manage their symptoms. Lõvi (2013: 56-57) has reached the same conclusion about blind and visually impaired students, stating that they

(9)

can acquire the same language skills as their sighted peers when the information is in accessible format and they have mastered the necessary technical skills. Salum (2011:50) claims that autistic students can “learn and graduate and acquire a profession”, when provided with appropriate surroundings and treatment, and adapted learning materials.

Although Salum’s and Ivask’s theses do not allow making any general conclusions about teaching English to particular type of SEN students as they are based on a very small sample, they provide guidelines for teachers who may encounter students with similar special educational needs.

One area of teaching English to SEN students that has not been covered yet is teaching students whose learning difficulties require implementing the SNCBS. In 2014 approximately half of students who were taught according to the SNCBS were enrolled in special schools (1082 students) and another half in mainstream schools where about half of the number studied in mainstream classes (459 students) and half in separate classes (492 students) (Kallaste 2016: 35). Regarding the inclusion policy, the number of SEN students in mainstream schools is supposed to rise (Ministry of Education and Research 2016).

The author of the present thesis has not found any material that might give information about practices or advice on teaching foreign languages to SEN students in Estonia who need implementing the SNCBS. A speech therapist Mare Valk (2010) gives a very general short overview of special educational needs in a mainstream school together with a few suggestions that could help students with particular needs in a foreign language lesson, and also mentions the need for cooperating with support staff (speech therapists, special education teachers, assistant teachers). The web page, the aim of which is to collect materials that are appropriate for teaching according to the SNCBS, includes Estonian, maths, natural science, history and human studies, but nothing about teaching foreign languages (SA Innove n.d.). The SNCBS outlines the weekly lesson plans, expected outcomes and general

(10)

teaching principles which differ from those of the NCBS (Riigi Teataja 2010b: 6.2).

According to the NCBS, foreign language learning starts in year 3, until the end of basic school the minimum requirement is three lessons a week (Riigi Teataja 2011: § 15), and students must reach level B1.2 by the end of their studies (Riigi Teataja 2011: Appendix 2 (2.2.4.1.)). According to the SNCBS, foreign language learning starts in year 5, until the end of the basic school the required amount is only two lessons a week and students must reach level A2.1 by the end of their studies (Riigi Teataja 2010b: Appendix 1 (6.2.14.3.)).

It can be assumed that the differences in requirements between the NCBS and the SNCBS may make inclusion in foreign language lessons especially difficult. Delayed starting point, reduced number of weekly lessons and the lack of appropriate materials poses a question of how to organise teaching in a meaningful way and consider the needs of all students. There is a reason to assume that most students who study according to SNCBS learn English as they are not required to learn the second foreign language and English is the most widely taught first foreign language in Estonia (HaridusSILM 2018).

Thus, the aim of the present thesis is to observe and describe the situation in practices of teaching English as a foreign language for students who need implementing the SNCBS in Estonia. These are students from primary to lower secondary level and with mild learning difficulties, which means that they lack cognitive skills, have difficulty in acquiring basic literacy and in understanding concepts. They may also have other special educational needs, but these are not the primary criteria for recommending the SNCBS. These students are referred to as students with learning difficulties (LD students) in the present thesis. Four aspects of teaching are focused on:

1) organisation of teaching (classroom, weekly schedule, support staff);

2) content (learning materials, methods, assessment);

3) how/whether teaching English falls into the inclusion framework;

(11)

4) teachers’ perceptions (confidence, needs).

The thesis consists of two main chapters. The first chapter gives a literature overview of inclusive education, of foreign language instruction for LD students and of the general situation in teaching SEN students in Estonia. The second chapter presents the research method, sample, data collection, analysis of the results and the discussion. The qualitative, descriptive study was carried out in the form of semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions plus a questionnaire for general background of a teacher. The sample consists of eight teachers from different settings – rural, urban, bigger and smaller schools.

(12)

1. LITERATURE OVERVIEW

The following chapter attempts to give an overview of what is behind the policy of inclusive education, what is said about teaching foreign languages to students with learning difficulties, and what is the situation with regards to inclusive education in Estonia.

1.1. Inclusive education

The basic concept of inclusive school derives from Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) which underlines the importance of regular schools as the most effective means of avoiding discrimination and ensuring the right of education for all regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions. The goal of inclusive school is to build inclusive society. It means that SEN students are educated in mainstream schools in the local communities together with their peers. Exceptions to this rule should be considered on individual basis and even if a student is enrolled in a special school, part-time attendance of a mainstream school should be encouraged.

Placement is probably the most easily recognisable aspect and can be considered the starting point of inclusive education. Data collection of the European Agency Statistics for Inclusive Education (the European Agency) (Watkins et al 2016) is targeted to gathering information about the number of students identified as having SEN and settings where they are educated. As the methodology of data collection attempts to get data that is comparable across countries, it also gives clearer guidelines for national policy-makers about understanding the concept of inclusive education and organising inclusive studies locally.

The difficulties are said to lie in two areas: identifying who is a SEN student and what is an inclusive setting. The European Agency has set the following criteria: (1) a student has SEN when he/she receives additional educational support as a result of an official decision; (2)

(13)

the official decision means that a multi-disciplinary team that includes members from school and out-of-school has assessed a student’s needs, a legal document describes what kind of support is necessary and the official decision is reviewed regularly; (3) an inclusive setting means that a SEN-student is educated in a mainstream class alongside their mainstream peers for 80% or more of the school week.

The data about the numbers and educational settings of SEN-students has been collected biannually since 2002. The latest report (Ramberg et al 2017) reflecting the data from 2012/13 schoolyear suggests that the gap between the countries in regards with the number of SEN-students is wide – from 1.11% (Sweden) to 17.47% (Scotland) of the whole school population. When looking at the data about educational settings in the case of Estonia, Finland and Sweden, it appears that Estonia has a higher rate of SEN students (46.10%) in inclusive settings than others (37.75 and 12.62 respectively); Finland has a higher rate of SEN-students (49.84%) in special classes in mainstream schools than Estonia (17.49) and Sweden does not have special classes; Sweden has more SEN-students (87.38) in special schools than Estonia (36.41) and Finland (12.41).

When looking at the pure quantitative data, it can be concluded that Estonia is ahead of its neighbours in placing SEN students in inclusive settings. However, when we take into account that Sweden has no legal definition of SEN and their educational policy does not allow treating or defining students in need of special support differently from other students and only in exceptional cases students are defined as having SEN and are educated in special schools (SPSM, 2015), it appears that in terms of placement and definition Sweden is the one that is closest to the inclusive education. Thus, the quantitative data about educating SEN students in either inclusive settings, in special classes in mainstream schools, or in special schools, must always be compared with the background information about each country’s legislation and data providing systems. Moreover, quantitative data is not by far

(14)

sufficient in order to assess the developments in inclusive education. It must be asked whether placement results in another, more important aspect of inclusive education – meaningful education which offers full development of every student’s potential. Another European Agency project describes the detailed indicators for assessing quality in inclusive education, based on the principle that “inclusive education can be understood as the presence /…/, participation /…/ and /…/ achievement of all learners in mainstream schools “(Ebersold

& Watkins 2011: 9).

The main aspects that indicate the quality of inclusive educa.tion are outlined in Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994). Student-centred approach is ensured by the flexible curriculum which can be adapted to a student’s needs. In addition, a student receives support starting from minimal help in the regular classroom to special support programmes and assistance from specialist teachers. Formative assessment is engaged to assess a student’s progress and to plan further actions. Expert teachers play a key role in the process, for they are the ones who spend most of the time with students – first notice special educational needs and further adapt curricula, differentiate instruction, and assess progress.

They are provided with appropriate pre-service and in-service programmes to develop their skills. Teams of teachers and support specialists share the responsibility of teaching students with special educational needs. Special schools serve as consulting units and expertise of special education specialists (psychologists, speech therapists, advisory teachers, etc.) is available. School heads are responsible for maintaining the whole school community’s positive attitude and appropriate organisation of studies. Regional and international research and development programmes that disseminate the examples of good practice help to create a unified understanding of inclusive education and further improve teaching and learning.

(15)

The concepts of inclusive policies must be reflected in important national educational documents that are the basis of organising work at the school and classroom level – national curricula and other relevant legislative acts. Although the curriculum is the most important source document for schools, it hinders the development of inclusive school when teaching is guided solely by the curriculum, but not by the students’ needs (Skogen & Holmberg 2004:182). The curriculum in an inclusive classroom is ‘a single curriculum’ which is accessible to all students; adjustable to different needs, including special educational needs;

includes activities that take into consideration both the age and developmental level of students (Mitchell 2014: 303). One part of flexible curriculum is appropriate assessment policy. In an inclusive classroom assessment provides feedback to teachers, learners and parents about what has or has not been achieved, assessment takes into account particular disabilities, helps to set further goals, enables students to show what they have learned (Mitchell 2014: 304-305, Skogen & Holmberg 2004: 222-224).

Teachers play the key role in implementing inclusive education, because they are the ones who work with students on daily basis, thus most likely notice first when a student needs extra or special support. Further on, a teacher is responsible for differentiating teaching by choosing and engaging most appropriate methods. A teacher has to assess a student’s achievement; according to that, reflect on chosen methods; make changes, if necessary.

Hattie (2003: 1-2) argues that a student’s achievement is influenced first by a student him/herself (50%), then by a teacher (30%) and then by home (expectations and encouragement), school (leadership, school and class size, environment) and peers. Mitchell (2014:302) agrees that there are cases when SEN students need distinctive teaching strategies and help of special teachers or therapists (visual or auditory impairment, speech and language difficulties, intellectual and physical disabilities), but mostly SEN students simply require good teaching. Skogen &Holmberg (2004:242) add that the teacher is the

(16)

first agent of changes and the innovator in everyday work that is necessary to achieve inclusive practices, but the teacher also needs all possible help and support. Watkins (2012:

7) concludes that inclusive teachers value learner diversity; support all learners; have high expectations for all learners’ achievements; work in collaboration with other educational professionals and parents on a regular basis; have appropriate initial teacher education and continue their in-service personal professional development.

All in all, following the policy of inclusive education requires broad-based efforts from everyone involved in education and, most of all, common understanding that inclusive education is more than placement. Although teachers have a great responsibility in providing education for all so that it meets individual needs and abilities, they have to be properly equipped.

1.2. Learning difficulties and foreign language teaching

Several authors agree that in an inclusive school student should be given the opportunity to learn foreign languages even some may argue that a student who has difficulties in their mother tongue should not be forced to face the same in language classes (Sparks 2016, Wight 2015, McColl 2005, Duvall 2006, Kleinert et.al 2007). Excluding LD students from language learning firstly gives them a clear signal that they are different, thus lowering their overall motivation to learn and also deprives them from opportunities that foreign language learning gives them in a wider sense. Kleinert et al (2007: 25) bring out even more reasons why students with learning difficulties might benefit from foreign language instruction: they may need a foreign language for further education; it can improve their sense of belonging and self-confidence as they have the same opportunities as their peers. Learning another language gives students the opportunity to compare their language and culture with other languages and cultures, critically observe the world they live in and develop tolerance

(17)

towards others (Wight 2015: 39). McColl (2005: 105-106) supports this, arguing that cultural studies provide context for language studies and students actually enjoy learning about the ways other people live. Moreover, foreign language learning is not something that happens exclusively within formal education, schools lay foundations for lifelong learning and

“education should open up potential, not limit it” (Marsh et al 2015: 143).

These arguments coincide with the SNCBS which states that the main goal of simplified teaching is to help a student with mild learning difficulties to become an independent, self- sufficient citizen who acknowledges differences between people, nationalities and cultures (Riigi Teataja 2010b: Appendix 1 (1)). So, there is no doubt that learning a foreign language is a necessary part of the simplified curriculum. The question remains how to organise teaching a foreign language so that students of different abilities receive appropriate and meaningful instruction and the requirements of inclusive education are met.

The issue is relevant not only in Estonia. In the European Commission report on teaching foreign languages to SEN students it is admitted that “this is an area in which there has been relatively little sharing of experience on good practice, at either policy or classroom level”

(Marsh et al 2015:6). Moreover, there is no evidence to what extent is special needs education integrated into initial foreign language teacher education in Europe and it is assumed that, considering the relatively recently introduced inclusion policies, there is need for more in-service training for foreign language teachers who work in mainstream schools (Marsh et al 2015: 17).

As teachers have direct influence on their students’ achievements, it is important that they are provided with appropriate resources and teaching conditions. In addition to teacher education, it is important to constantly reflect on one’s practice, meet regularly with other teachers and support specialist for planning and reviewing the development of SEN students, and broaden the scope of techniques for catering special educational needs of students by

(18)

sharing experiences (Marsh et al 2015: 37). Collaborative planning and teaching is essential in providing most appropriate education, because special educational needs are usually complex and each student’s solution may be different (Marsh et al 2015: 51). Collaboration may happen in different forms: (1) co-teaching where a general education teacher and special education teacher are equal partners in the classroom; (2) consultation where a general education teacher is responsible for what happens in the classroom and a special education teacher acts as an advisor while meeting outside the classroom; (3) partnership with assistant teachers who usually have more limited training and thus the main responsibility for planning and teaching is taken by a general education teacher; (4) partnership with non- educator specialists (social workers, police officers, physiotherapists, etc.); (5) partnership with parents; and (6) school-wide teams that develop supportive culture and co-ordinate special needs education (Mitchell 2014: 71-73).

Timo Ahonen (Marsh et al 2015: 56) emphasises the need for teaching study skills and learning strategies which enhance learner-independence. These are procedural skills (time management, material organisation), cognitive-based skills (integrating new material with existing knowledge), and meta-cognitive skills (how to select, monitor and use learning strategies). Mitchell (2014: 94) points out that students with learning difficulties do not acquire efficient cognitive skills without teaching them explicitly – they “don’t know what strategies to use, or they use the wrong ones, or they don’t spontaneously use strategies”

which may lower a student’s motivation and self-confidence or even lead to aggressive behaviour.

Engaging proper learning strategies helps to store and process the information. In order to understand what kind of problems LD students face, it is necessary to know, how the memory works while learning. Some concepts need to be stored in the primary memory which makes automatic associations, such as letter-sound correspondence, multiplication

(19)

tables (Mitchell 2014: 24). In foreign language learning, for example, a certain amount of words or phrases need to be stored in the primary memory, otherwise spontaneous interaction and comprehension is not possible. Automation happens only as a result of sufficient practice and repetition which in the case of LD students takes more effort, but should not happen as ‘drill and kill’ (ibid: 24). In the short-term memory or working memory the new information interacts with the information from the long-term memory and while the amount of items and the time they can be held in the short-term memory is limited, the limitations are even greater in the case of LD students (ibid: 29). It means that for LD students new material should be broken down into smaller steps and more opportunities for encountering the new material should be allowed so that it could be stored in the long-term or permanent memory. Again, rote learning is not an effective way for it. LD students may not know how to remember, how to combine new and already acquired information, they may have difficulty in using the acquired information in different contexts, and the process of retrieving information may be inefficient and slow (ibid: 30). LD students need extra help in storing new information in a meaningful way.

The contributors¹ to the European Commission Report on the teaching and learning of languages in special needs education (Marsh et al 2005), Duvall (2007), Wight (2015) and Mitchell (2014) have pointed out the teaching techniques that are appropriate for LD students. Mitchell describes most of these teaching strategies in his book What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education. He calls these strategies ‘evidence-based’ as he has relied on over 2000 research articles from a variety of countries from all over the world in addition to his own research and experiences as a teacher educator and consultant in inclusive education (Mitchell 2014: xiv). The teaching techniques that the abovementioned authors point out are as follows:

1 Robin L. Schwarz, Timo Ahonen, Ian Smythe, Margaret Crombie, Annemarie Vicsek, Christina Richardson

(20)

 reducing the syllabus into essential elements, reducing vocabulary demand;

 giving additional time, slowing the pace of presentation:

 explicit teaching of phonology, syntax and semantics;

 frequent review and repetition using different means, but minimal rote learning;

 using graphic organisers, mnemonic devices, and colour-coding;

 role playing, singing, games;

 computer-assisted language learning if materials provide meaningful and appropriate practice, not just for rote learning or keeping students occupied.

 alternative assessment, e.g. language portfolios;

 multi-sensory teaching;

 Total Physical Response;

 Orton-Gillingham method;

All these teaching techniques take into account the memory shortages of LD students.

Multi-sensory teaching means involving more than one sense at a time. For example, a student can see and hear the words, listen to and complete the instructions. One example of multi-sensory teaching is Total Physical Response (TPR) which is good for smaller students and where learning is connected with action. Orton-Gillingham Method takes into account most of the abovementioned teaching strategies: the teaching is multisensory, explicit, structured, sequential, repetitive and cumulative and cognitive. The students’ performance is continuously monitored in order to assess the student’s needs and plan the lessons accordingly.

1.3. Situation of teaching SEN students in Estonia

According to Estonian Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act which came into force on 1 September 2010 (Riigi Teataja 2010a), students with special educational needs (SEN students) must be taught following the principles of inclusive education, i.e. they are taught in a mainstream classroom in their school of residence (ibid: §47). Special educational needs mean that schools need to make certain adjustments in teaching methods or even in the curriculum, study environment and teaching staff. While in some cases schools can decide what kind of support a student needs (ibid: §48), they mostly depend on

(21)

recommendations of the counselling committee which must be in turn approved by a parent (ibid: §49). Besides teaching in a mainstream classroom, schools are entitled to create special classes or groups in order to organise the studies of students with special educational needs more efficiently (ibid: §51).

Estonian Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act (Riigi Teataja 2010a) and the National Curriculum for Basic Schools (Riigi Teataja 2011) do not give strict guidelines how teaching of SEN students must be organised. Schools develop different approaches according to their better understanding, finances provided by local municipality governments and opportunities for hiring support staff (Plado 2016). Estonian Ministry of Education and Research have conducted a study “Inclusive education of SEN students and the effectiveness of related support measures “. The final report of the study (Räis, Kallaste

& Sandre 2016) describes Estonia as being in the transitional phase, because reaching the goal of inclusive education requires changing the mentality of the whole society. It is also pointed out that teachers do not get enough support and schools prefer teaching SEN students in separate classrooms. The analysis does not say that increased inclusion has given better prospects in further education or job market, but educators consider it important that SEN students can attend a school close to their home, not a special school. Consequently, although more SEN students are being placed in mainstream schools, it is not yet certain whether they are educated in a meaningful way, so that they can reach their full potential.

Teaching students whose learning difficulties require implementing the SNCBS in a mainstream class supposedly creates considerable additional workload for a teacher and requires additional resources from schools. Karin Simso (2015), a class teacher in Mammaste Primary School speaks about her experience with a special class of LD students where she had to teach five fourth-grade students according to the SNCBS, two fourth- graders according to the NCBS, two first-graders according to the SNCBS and one first-

(22)

grader according to the NCBS. When following strictly the documentation that requires completing an individual curriculum for each SEN student, she ended up with nine different curricula which understandably did not work in the classroom. It should be noted that the teacher had just passed two-year requalification courses in the field of special education and felt confident about what she should do, but in the end felt that she was given a complicated task. She could teach general competencies and social skills, but could not reach required learning outcomes. The school did not find it financially possible to employ assistant teachers. Nevertheless, she remained positive about inclusive teaching of SEN students. This experience indicates that even if the teacher has appropriate training and believes in inclusion, he/she has difficulty in teaching students who need special help alone in the classroom, not to mention the extra workload concerning documentation.

The thematic report on meaningful inclusion in the research “Inclusive education of SEN students and the effectiveness of related support measures.” (Räis & Sõmer 2016) is probably the best source for finding out what happens in the classroom and what are teachers’ perceptions and needs regarding special needs education in Estonia. The research sample consisted of different focus groups in education at school and outside of school. 50%

of teachers questioned reported to have had experience with students who studied according to the SNCBS (Räis & Sõmer 2016: 9).

The main aspects that hinder meaningful inclusion according to the teachers in mainstream schools are as follows: (1) limited time resources for additional instruction, (2) lack of assistant teachers, (3) teaching different curricula (NCBS and SNCBS) in the same classroom, (4) too many students in a class, (5) lack of appropriate learning materials, (6) lack of support specialists, (7) lack of competence in working with SEN students and integrating them into a mainstream class (ibid: 16-17). The most effective measures that support inclusion are: (1) support staff who provide support for students and counselling for

(23)

teachers, (2) teacher’s autonomy in organising teaching on the class level, and (3) creating special classes for SEN students (ibid: 24).

The study reveals (ibid: 35) that while most of mainstream teachers claim that they are able to recognise a SEN student in the classroom and about half of them can get advice or know where to find information about teaching SEN students, they assess their abilities of adapting teaching according to the needs of SEN students to be very low. Thus, they feel that additional training for working with SEN students is necessary. On the other hand, teachers who have had training in special education admit that real competence comes with practice, because SEN students have very different needs and teachers should be resourceful in order to develop the best approaches.

Learning materials (ibid: 47-49) are considered to be sufficient only for the NCBS. Less than half of the teachers say that they have enough materials for students with either individual learning plans or the SNCBS. Teachers seem to have enough simplified materials for teaching Estonian or maths, but report the lack of materials in other subjects. What they need even more than learning materials for students, are the instructions on carrying out activities in the classroom.

Teachers’ attitudes (ibid: 40) about educating all students in mainstream schools tend to be more positive than negative, regardless of the challenges that they have met. However, the number of teachers who prefer teaching SEN students in special classes is higher than those who prefer total inclusion in mainstream classes. One reason for this is thought to be the lack of support measures and services in schools, but the study revealed that teachers’

opinions about inclusion into mainstream classes did not change even when it was presumed that all necessary support is available.

It is not possible to find out whether any teachers of foreign languages were included in the sample of described research and even if it can be assumed that a lot of issues are the

(24)

same for all teachers, there are still some aspects that may make inclusion in foreign language classes more complicated. LD students who are taught according to the SNCBS can start learning a foreign language two years later than their peers and have fewer lessons per week.

Great emphasis is placed on oral language development, especially at the beginning. Taking into account what kind of strategies and techniques should be used in teaching LD students, it is hard to imagine how teachers can organise meaningful instruction in the mainstream classroom even with the help of an assistance teacher, not to mention how a teacher can manage alone in the classroom. As inclusion only happens when, in addition to placement, a SEN student gets meaningful instruction according to his/her needs, it is important to know what happens in the foreign language classroom. The author of the present thesis has encountered confusion and doubts among teachers of English about what could be the best approach to teaching students with SNCBS. Thus, it was decided that there is a need for a more in-depth and structured analysis. The most valuable source for that is a teacher who chooses materials, techniques, and can best evaluate a student’s progress.

(25)

2. EMPIRICAL STUDY ON TEACHING EFL TO STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

This part of the present thesis gives an overview of the empirical study which was carried out in order to observe and describe the situation in foreign language teaching practices for students who need implementing SNCBS in Estonia. The author’s purpose was to find out whether the placement of LD students has resulted in meaningful teaching and learning and what it requires from the teacher. The main focus is on the organisation of teaching (classroom, weekly schedule, support staff), content (learning materials, techniques, assessment), teacher’s perceptions (confidence, will, needs) and whether teaching EFL is taught inclusively at schools.

2.1. Methodology and data collection

Considering the possible complexity of teaching English to LD students which may arise due to the inclusive policy in education of SEN students and/or different requirements in the curricula (NCBS and SNCBS), the quantitative study was not considered to give informative data. The aim of qualitative studies is to try to understand and describe the phenomenon that is being researched rather than looking for statistical regularities (Hirsijärvi et al 2007: 168).

Interviewing is the data collection method that is mainly used in qualitative studies (Hirsijärvi et al 2007: 192). Interviewing is chosen when (1) it is difficult to predict the direction of answers, (2) many different responses are expected, and (3) it is assumed that there is the necessity to specify the answers (Hirsijärvi et al 2007:192). The form of a semi- structured interview is controlled, but allows additional spontaneous answers (Cohen et al 2007: 349). In qualitative studies the sample can be small and is considered to be sufficient when saturation is achieved (Hirsijärvi et al 2007: 169). Also, the qualitative study does not

(26)

attempt to generalize the results, but tries to bring out important aspects of a phenomenon by studying a single case more thoroughly (ibid).

For these reasons, data in this study was collected in the form of semi-structured individual interviews (see Appendix 1 for the list of questions asked). Eight interviews were conducted during the period of March-April 2018. Prospective interviewees were approached either directly or via email. They were informed about the aims of the study.

Their permission for recording the interviews was asked and they were assured that the data collection is confidential and anonymous. Three interviews were conducted at the respondents’ schools, one interview at the author’s school and four interviews via Skype.

All the interviews were recorded and there is 5 hours of recorded data altogether. The interviews were conducted in Estonian and translated into English by the author.

Convenience sampling was used when choosing the participants for the present study. In order to simplify the process, the list of schools where students were taught according to the SNCBS in 2017/18 academic year was obtained from the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. It was attempted to include teachers of English from different settings – rural and urban schools, small and large schools, basic and secondary schools. As for secondary schools, only those that teach forms 1-12 were included as the SNCBS is implemented on basic school level. The list from the Ministry provided information only about schools where the SNCBS is implemented in forms 7-9. During the interviews it occurred that some teachers also teach students in forms 5-6 and data about them was not excluded, because it was difficult to make distinctions between teaching these two levels. Another criterion that was taken into account when choosing the participants was whether LD students are taught in the mainstream or separate classroom as the list from the Ministry included such data as well. It was attempted to include both the settings.

(27)

2.2. Respondents

The sample consists of eight respondents from three counties and three different types of schools – gymnasium (2), large urban basic school (1) and small rural basic school (5). The background data that was collected from each respondent included the following information: age, general teaching experience and experience with LD students, qualifications, training in the field of special education, and the current occupation at school.

Respondent 1 (further T1) is 50+ years old, has 30+ years of general teaching experience and 9 years with LD students. She has the primary school teacher diploma and currently works as an assistant teacher in a gymnasium. She has had some in-service training courses in the field of special needs education, including one longer (160-hour) course “SEN student at a mainstream school”

Respondent 2 (further T2) is 50+ years old, has 30+ years of general teaching experience and 15 years with LD students. She has MA in education management and has passed requalification courses in teaching English. She works as a teacher of English and an assistant head teacher in a small rural basic school. She has had no training in the field of special needs education.

Respondent 3 (further T3) is 30+ years old, has 10+ years of general teaching experience and 10 years with LD students. She has BA in primary education, including minor in English and currently works as a teacher of English and a substitute teacher of Estonian in a small rural basic school. She has also passed the course “SEN student at a mainstream school”

Respondent 4 (further T4) is 50+ years old, has 30+ years of general teaching experience and started teaching LD students only the present school year. She has higher education in Russian language and literature and has passed requalification courses in teaching English.

She works as a teacher of English in a big urban basic school. She has had some shorter in- service courses in the field of special needs education.

(28)

Respondent 5 (further T5) is 40+ years old, has 20+ years of general teaching experience and 8 years with LD students. She has MA in special education and has passed requalification courses in teaching English. She works as a teacher of English and handicraft, special education teacher and an assistant head teacher in a small rural basic school. She has had regular in-service training in the field of special educational needs (2-3 courses every year).

Respondent 6 (further T6) is 50+ years old, has 20+ years of general teaching experience and started teaching LD students the present school year. She has higher education in biology and has passed requalification courses in teaching English. She works as a teacher of English, biology and chemistry in a small rural basic school. She has had some shorter in- service courses in the field of special needs education.

Respondent 7 (further T7) is 40+ years old, has 20+ years of general teaching experience and 3 years with LD students from 2007 to 2011 in addition to the present school year. She has MA in educational sciences as a teacher of several subjects in basic school (English and social sciences). She works as an assistant head teacher and a substitute teacher of English.

She had a course on special education during university studies and has had some shorter in- service courses.

Respondent 8 (further T8) is 20+ years old, has 2 years of general teaching experience and has taught LD students from the beginning of her teaching career. She has MA in legal studies and started teaching at school through the programme “Noored Kooli” (similar to

“Teach First” in the United Kingdom). The programme offered a course about differentiated teaching and apart from that, she has received no training in special needs education. She works as a teacher of German and teaches English in form 4 and for LD students in a gymnasium.

(29)

2.3. Analysis of the responses

The analysis is based on the responses in eight semi-structured interviews (see Appendix 1). The answers of the respondents are indicated as T1-T8 (teacher) and in some cases Sc1- Sc8 (school) respectively when organisation of studies is analysed as it is done on the school level.

2.3.1. Organising teaching EFL to LD students on the school level

According to the principles of inclusive education, SEN students, including those whose learning difficulties need implementing the SNCBS, are generally taught in mainstream schools where three options are possible: (1) in a mainstream classroom, (2) in a separate classroom, or (3) combined. Three options also emerged from the interviews; however, the classification is slightly different as seen in Table 1. The requirements of the SNCBS are that LD students start learning a foreign language in form 5 and study it 2 lessons per week until the end of the basic school. This requirement is not always followed for different reasons.

Table 1. How is teaching LD students is organised at schools?

School Classroom LD students’ level Started learning English

Lessons per week

Sc1 separate class form 8 form 5 3 lessons

Sc8 special classes for LD students

form 5-7 form 8-9

form 5 2 lessons

Sc7 special class for LD students

form 5, 7, 9 form 5 2 lessons, one student 3 lessons Sc3 mainstream class,

with peers

form 5 form 6

form 3 form 3

4 lessons 3 lessons Sc4 mainstream class,

with peers

form 7 form 2 3 lessons

Sc6 mainstream class, with peers

form 7 form 3 2 lessons

Sc2 mainstream class, not with peers

form 7 form 9

form 5 2 lessons

Sc5 mainstream class, not with peers

form 5 form 7

form 3 2 lessons

(30)

Special classes are created for students who learn according to the SNCBS in two schools.

In both the cases these are composite classes. In Sc7 there is a class of three students from forms 5, 7, and 9 who each have a separate learning plan and different learning materials. In Sc8 there are two classes, one of six students from forms 5-7 and another of five students from forms 8-9. In each class students follow the same learning plans and use the same materials. The teacher finds it possible because students are on a relatively same language level within one class – “they are well teachable together”, as T8 has noted. In Sc1 the situation is similar to Sc8, meaning that LD students learn English in a separate classroom and use the same materials. However, they officially belong to the mainstream class which means that they have some other lessons together with their peers and all three students are of the same age group (form 8). The decision to have English lessons separately was made because this way it is possible to do more oral work as it is required in the SNCBS. In all the three schools, students started learning English in form 5 and have had 2 lessons per week so far. Exceptions in Sc1 and Sc7were made for the present school year (2017/18). In Sc1 all the three students have 3 lessons per week as they have advanced well and enjoy learning English. In Sc7 form 9 student has 3 lessons per week following for the same reason. This student has one individual lesson. In both the cases free weekly lesson resource is used so the students do not exceed the allowed maximum weekly workload.

In three schools LD students are taught in the mainstream classroom together with their peers. In Sc3 there is one LD student in form 5 and another in form 6. In Sc4 there is one LD student in form 7 and in Sc6 two LD students in form 7. They all started learning English at the same time as their peers – in Sc3 and in Sc6 in form 3 and in Sc4 in form 2, but he reasons vary. In the case of Sc6, the curriculum change for one student was made only in the middle of the present school year. Another student started learning in this school at the beginning of the present school year and the teacher (T6) does not have information about

(31)

his previous studies. Similarly, T4 was unable to say why the requirements of the SNCBS have not been followed in the case of her LD student, because she has not taught him/her before the present school year. It indicates that there is the lack of cooperation both between schools and within a school. In the case of Sc3, it is not possible to create timetables that meet precisely the requirements of SNCBS, because it would require at least some individual lessons and consequently additional staff. Thus, LD students participated in English lessons in forms 3 and 4, did simple tasks and they were not graded. While in Sc3 and Sc4 students have had the same number of lessons as their peers throughout their English language studies, in Sc6 students have 2 lessons of English per week after implementing the SNCBS.

In two schools (Sc2 and Sc5) LD students are taught in the mainstream class, but, differently from Sc3, Sc4 and Sc6, not together with their peers. In Sc2 LD students are in forms 7 and 9. Both of them started learning English in form 5 and have 2 lessons per week.

Form 7 student has one individual lesson and one lesson together with form 6. Form 9 student has both lessons together with form 6. The reason is that 6^th-formers are on the relatively even language level, the class is small and the teacher can have some time to teach the LD student individually. In Sc5 LD students are in forms 5 and 7. Both of them started learning English in form 3. Form 7 student started learning according to the SNCBS in form 5 and by that time he/she had already learned English together with peers for two years. Although form 5 student started learning according to the SNCBS in form 2, the student’s abilities in oral language acquisition enabled to begin with English earlier. Form 5 student studies English together with form 6, because the general atmosphere in this class suits him better emotionally and in most language aspects besides writing he is almost at the same level as the others. Form 7 student has studied English together with form 4 for several years, because he/she advances very slowly and has serious problems with memory. At the same time, he/she is emotionally stable and fits in with any class. So, there are two reasons for

(32)

organising teaching this way in Sc5. On the one hand, the teacher can teach the whole class, using the same materials, on the other hand, students’ language level and emotional state is taken into consideration.

The responses reveal that teaching in a separate classroom or in a mainstream classroom but not with peers allows more flexibility in planning the timetable so that it meets the requirements of SNCBS. In addition to that, schools might have more opportunities for considering individual needs and abilities of LD students. The approach to the organisation of studies seems not to be dependent on either the setting or the size of a school. Special classes are in one gymnasium and in one small basic school. Teaching English in a separate room is organised in one gymnasium. LD students are taught in mainstream classes together with their peers in two smaller basic schools and in one larger basic school. In two smaller basic schools LD students study English together with other age groups.

All the schools have support specialists. There are speech therapists in four schools, assistant teachers in three schools, social pedagogues in five schools and special education teachers in five schools. In four schools one support specialist also performs the duties of a SEN coordinator. However, none of the respondents get any kind of help in teaching English from the support staff. Two teachers (T3 andT4) say that they cannot help as they do not know the language. One teacher is not sure that they can help. Three teachers (T1, T3 and T5) have more thorough knowledge about special needs themselves. Two teachers (T4 and T7) get general information about SEN students and two teachers (T4 and T8) get help with the documentation. The results indicate that collaborative teaching is not a common practice.

As seen from the responses above, the ways LD students are taught are very different and the reasoning behind the way they are taught verge from the language level of students to their emotional needs and in some cases it is the question of simple practicality - in which

(33)

lesson can the teacher offer the most help to the student. What is clear, though, is that the decisions regarding the way LD students are taught are done on case by case basis.

2.3.2. Learning materials

As no information is available on learning materials that suit the needs of LD students, teachers have to make decisions according to their best understanding. Probably the only guiding principle is CERF level A2 that LD students have to reach at the end of basic school (Riigi Teataja 2010b: Appendix 1 (6.2.14.3)) which is the same for other students who finish form 6 (Riigi Teataja 2011: Appendix 2 (2.1.5.1)). I Love English (ILE) series appear to be the most commonly used coursebooks by the respondents of the present study. Although they are not marked according to CERF levels, they correspond to the NCBS and thus provide at least some framework for teachers. The question is whether these materials are appropriate for LD students even if they support acquiring a certain language level.

T1 and T8, who teach LD students in separate classrooms, use the same materials within the class, while T7, who also has LD students in a separate classroom, uses a different coursebook for each student, taking into account each student’s level. In all the cases LD students’ coursebooks are different from those used in mainstream classes. T2 and T5 teach LD students in the mainstream class, but not together with their peers. While T2 uses different coursebooks for LD students in the classroom, T5 has placed her LD students so that the same learning materials could be used. T3, T4 and T6 teach LD students in the mainstream class together with their peers, but while T4 and T6 use the same materials, T3 has different coursebooks for LD students. No certain patterns emerge from this data, which indicates that choosing a coursebook might in some cases depend on other factors than placement or the level of LD students (Table 2).

(34)

Table 2. Which coursebooks are used for teaching LD students?

Res pon dent

Classroom Mainstream class level

LD students’

level

Mainstream class coursebook

LD students’

coursebook T1 separate --- form 8 --- ILE 3

T7 separate --- form 5,7,9 --- Way Ahead 1,3 Access 1 T8 separate --- form 5-7 --- Upstream A1+

T8 separate --- form 8-9 --- no coursebook

T2 mainstream form 6 form 7 ILE 4 ILE 2

T3 mainstream form 5 form 5 ILE 3 Pop-up Now 1

T3 mainstream form 6 form 6 ILE 4 Pop-up Now 1

None of these coursebooks are specially targeted to LD students, which means that teachers cannot merely take a book and base teaching on it. Some tasks may be too difficult and may be excluded, but that is not sufficient. In order to learn a certain topic, LD students need more practice and revision than their non-LD peers. As the practice of six respondents indicates, adaptations need to be made and additional materials created even when the selection of coursebooks is made based on a particular student’s expected level.

T1 relies on the coursebook, but leaves out more difficult tasks. As listening tasks on CDs are too fast-paced, she firstly lets students listen to CDs and then reads herself in order to give students the sense of a native speaker’s speech, but also the feeling of success. T2 leaves out all the grammar tasks and puts emphasis on vocabulary and reading. T3 has so far selected only very few tasks from ILE books, and has decided to “test” another coursebook (Pop-up Now 1), which “is not very good, but provides opportunities for individual work”

while the teacher is dealing with the rest of the class and reduces the necessity of compiling or finding additional materials. T5 simplifies and reduces the coursebook material. As one student has serious writing difficulties, then such tasks are reduced to minimum. Also, more complicated texts are read aloud, with the teachers help, because the student understands

(35)

better when he/she can hear the words. Workbook exercises are given selectively and only when copied in enlarged format. T7 leaves out long and complicated reading texts and difficult grammar topics, emphasis is on vocabulary and everyday communication. T8 uses a coursebook with one class only, so as to have at least some framework. She leaves out difficult topics, chooses the ones that are of interest to students and spends more time on those, providing additional material.

Two respondents teach their form 7 LD students, using the same ILE5 coursebook as with the mainstream class. T4 says that LD student does not do all the exercises, does them with the help of a classmate or the teacher, is allowed to take tests with the help of learning materials and has to learn less words than classmates. T6 admits that although LD students formally have the ILE5 coursebook, they are able to do very few tasks form it, only some reading tasks with the help of other students.

Considering the limitations in using coursebook materials, it can be assumed that teachers need to compile materials themselves and so do all the respondents, either from scratch, using ready-made materials of lower levels, or adapting ready-made materials.

Five respondents (T1, T3, T5, T7 and T8) have collected numerous picture material:

 lotos and dominos,

 pictures by topics to support vocabulary learning,

 illustrative material for learning grammar,

 colouring-in according to instructions for reading practice,

 describing pictures for speaking practice.

Two teachers (T1, T7) point out that LD students like to learn vocabulary rather by picture- to-word than word-to-word association and simple colourful schemes enhance understanding grammar topics.

Five respondents (T2, T3, T5, T6 and T8) mention compiling crosswords, which are used for learning, revision, and even for testing. T3 adds that crossword tests are easier as students see how many letters there are in a word. Creating crosswords is probably one of the least

PRACTICES OF TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE CASE OF STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES IN ESTONIAN BASIC SCHOOLS